Perspectives: Actor’s death recalls key defamation case here

Listen to this article

The death two months ago of actor Robert Carradine, a member of the illustrious Carradine thespian family, was overlooked by the folks who put together the 98th annual Academy Awards “In Memoriam” presentation in Hollywood last month, neglecting to mention him in the televised program. But he was not alone in being bypassed. Other recently deceased luminaries of the screen who were left out included Gene Hackman, Brigit Bardot, June Lockhart, Bud Cort, and Malcolm Jamal-Warner, among other oversights, in lieu of assistant cinematographers and theatrical agents no one ever heard of when they were alive.

But Carradine’s passing resonated with the portion of the Minnesota legal community engaged in defamation and data practices matters because of the roll, he played in a case at the intersection of those two legal issues

The actor, who was bipolar, committed suicide at his Los Angeles on Feb. 23 at age 71. The son of legendary movie villain and occasional monster characters, dating back to the classic horror flicks of the 1930’s, John Carradine, and the brother of actors Keith Carradine, and the late David Carradine of the popular “Kung Fu” television series in the early 1970s. The deceased cut a wide swath in his acting career in a variety of roles over a span of more than four decades. He was most known for his role as the father of the Hillary Duff character in the “Lizzie McGuire” television series from 2001-2004 and, before that, as the head of the nerds in “Revenge of the Nerds,” the 1984 cult movie modeled after the John Belushi 1978  “Animal House” vehicle that sparked a franchise of comedy “Nerd” movies. But Carradine also  appeared in a wide variety of other films of varying quality.

Due to Carradine’s encounter with the law here in Minnesota, it is often thought that the “Revenge” movie and sequels were filmed here, but the “Revenge” opener actually was shot mostly on a college campus in Tucson, Arizona.

But the deceased Carradine has a Minnesota nexus, and it’s a major one concerning defamation and data practices law. That posture is attributable to his role as a plaintiff in landmark litigation in Carradine v. State, 511 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. 1994), which arose out of a criminal case and morphed into a key case in communications law.

His unfortunate death provides an opportune occasion to recall that important Minnesota case.

Driving demon

Carradine, in the Twin Cities for some unspecified reason, was stopped by a State Patrol trooper while driving like a speed demon on the way to the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in the early morning, clocked at 90 miles per hour, culminating in a 2-mile police chase.

The arresting trooper dutifully prepared a written arrest report describing Carradine’s conduct as excessive speeding; reckless driving; fleeing an officer and impersonating one, which the actor and his passenger disputed.

Carradine was detained for some 10 hours after a strip search before being released on his own recognizance. A local news reporter contacted the arresting trooper, who described the events that resulted in the actor’s arrest, which was then published in the local media and picked up by national news sources and on a television show. The actor was charged with various driving violations, which were pleaded down to a petty noncriminal misdemeanor speeding offense.

“I’m a nerd, and uh, I’m proud of it.”
Character Gilbert in “Revenge of the Nerds” (1984)

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

“We’ve been out combing the high schools all day [looking for dates].”
Character Booger in ‘Nerd’ movie 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

“All jocks ever think about is sports, and all I ever think about is sex.”
Head Nerd Robert Carradine (1954 – 2026)

Defamation data

After the plea, the speeding actor sued the arresting trooper and the state on a variety of federal and state constitutional and tort claims, all of which were dismissed, except those for defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and vicarious liability. The Court of Appeals, on appeal by the defendant trooper and the state, affirmed denial of the dismissal motion for defamation, holding that the trooper did not have an absolute privilege to make defamatory statements in the arrest report and subsequent statements to the media about the incident 494 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. App. 1992), which was the issue taken up on review by the Supreme Court.

Tracing the “history of absolute privilege” dating back to 1389 for statements made by public officials, the court noted its “uneven development,” citing a remark by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 579 (1989). Whether to recognize the privilege for the report and media statement in Carradine’s case “depends on many factors in addressing two questions: the actionability of the arrest report and the statements to the media.

As to the former, the answer was “yes,” absolute immunity applies since preparing it is a “key part of an arresting officer’s job to prepare a written report,” which plays a “significant role in the [ultimate] trial.” But allowing defamation claims deters officers from “preparing a detailed accurate report” and result “a bland report … less useful in any subsequent prosecution and trial” if the officer is subject to libel liability. Thus, the officer and his employer, the state, are not liable for anything written in the arrest report.

But immunity for statements to the press is “a different matter” since an officer’s responses to press inquiries are not like preparing an arrest report, are only ”incidental” to the performance of an officer’s duties and, therefore, are not “absolutely privileged.”

However, the dichotomy brings the Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.01, et seq. into play on grounds that the “exact … or substantial repetition” of the official report in statements to the press “may not support liability” because the report is “a matter of public record under § 13.82 of the Act.”

Therefore, the case was remanded to determine whether the remarks to a press go beyond the report and devoid of privilege.

A dissent by Justice Alan Page, joined by Justice Esther Tomljanolich, would have dismissed the case for lack of “actual malice” necessary for public figures suing for defamation under New York Times Co. v. Sulivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) requiring proof by “clear and convincing” proof of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.

Therefore, the case was remanded on the press statements but the ensuing events are lost to history. But the principles enunciated by the court are good law on defamation and data practices some three-plus decades later.

Carradine cases

The actor’s lawsuit is not the only “Carradine” case in the annals of Minnesota law. Here are three others:

• State v. Carradine, 2024 WL 3731846 (Minn. App. Sept. 8, 2014) (nonprecedential): The Court of Appeals affirmed an Olmsted County jury conviction rejecting a challenge to the use of a prior conviction as impeachment during the defendant’s testimony.
• The Supreme Court inCarradine v. State, 511 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. 2015) affirmed a decision by the Hennepin County District Court denying post-conviction relief in a second-degree murder case based on improper arguments of counsel and newly discovered evidence.
• Federal Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel recommended denial of a habeas corpus petition and related discovery requests by the same offender serving a life sentence in Carradine v. Richards, No. 15-cv-4167 (JRJ/FLN) (July 5, 201).

The deceased actor Carradine cut a wide swath in the movie industry with roles in a variety of flicks. But his one case here remains the law in Minnesota concerning the interplay between defamation and the Data Practices Act.

RELATED: More Perspectives columns

PERSPECTIVES POINTERS

Half -dozen eclectic movies of Robert Carradine

• “The Big Red One” (1980): World War II skirmishes in North Africa.
• “Escape From LA” (1996): Dystopian future as daughter of deranged president joins rebels.
• “Django Unchained” (2012): Freed slave accompanying pre-Civil War bounty hunter.
• “Mommy, I Didn’t Do It” (2017): New lawyer’s daughter accused of murder.
• “Nearly Deported” (2019): Working at funeral home after death of girlfriend.
• “The Night They Came Home” (2024): Searching for teenage criminals in the Old West.

Marshall H. Tanick is an attorney with the Twin Cities law firm of Meyer Njus Tanick Linder Robbins, P.A.